IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i22p14655-d966458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Analysis of Factors Shaping Vaccine Attitudes and Behaviours in a Low-Trust Society Based on Structural Equation Modelling—The Case of Poland’s Vaccination Programme against COVID-19

Author

Listed:
  • Michał Wróblewski

    (Institute of Sociology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Toruń, Poland
    The Łukasiewicz Research Network Institute of Organisation and Management in Industry, 00-879 Warszawa, Poland)

  • Andrzej Meler

    (Institute of Sociology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Toruń, Poland)

  • Joanna Stankowska

    (Institute of Sociology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, 87-100 Toruń, Poland)

  • Ewa Kawiak-Jawor

    (The Łukasiewicz Research Network Institute of Organisation and Management in Industry, 00-879 Warszawa, Poland)

Abstract

This study focuses on factors that shape vaccine attitudes and behaviours in the context of a low-trust society. Our analysis focuses on the Polish vaccination programme against COVID-19, primarily on (1) the evaluation of the information campaign, (2) trust in the institutions, (3) trust in other people, (4) attitudes toward vaccine safety and efficacy, (5) attitudes toward restrictions related to vaccination (e.g., restricted access to certain services for unvaccinated persons) and the introduction of mandatory vaccination, (6) the evaluation of the government’s actions during the pandemic, and (7) political preferences. The study was conducted with a sample of 1143 adult residents in Poland (CATI). The explanation of the factors determining the COVID-19 vaccine was based on structural equation modelling (SEM). The model showed that the declared fact of vaccination was largely determined by a positive attitude toward restrictions related to vaccination and trust in vaccines. The formation of the provaccine attitude was to an extent determined by the assessment of the government’s campaign and actions during pandemic. While institutional trust had a positive effect on support for the ruling coalition (0.56), the latter on its own had the opposite effect (−0.61) on the formation of provaccine attitude. In the group who both trust institutions and support the parties currently in power, there are more of those who simultaneously reject the restrictions and mandatory vaccination and remain sceptical about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines than those who both trust in the vaccine safety and efficacy and accept the restrictions and mandatory vaccination. This indicates that in the context of strong political polarisation, ideological affiliations may play a greater role in shaping vaccine attitudes and behaviours than institutional trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Michał Wróblewski & Andrzej Meler & Joanna Stankowska & Ewa Kawiak-Jawor, 2022. "An Analysis of Factors Shaping Vaccine Attitudes and Behaviours in a Low-Trust Society Based on Structural Equation Modelling—The Case of Poland’s Vaccination Programme against COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:14655-:d:966458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/14655/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/14655/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marta Makowska & Rafał Boguszewski & Monika Podkowińska, 2022. "Trust in Medicine as a Factor Conditioning Behaviors Recommended by Healthcare Experts during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-11, January.
    2. George W. Warren & Ragnar Lofstedt, 2021. "COVID-19 vaccine rollout risk communication strategies in Europe: a rapid response," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3-4), pages 369-379, April.
    3. Goldman, Alyssa W. & Cornwell, Benjamin, 2015. "Social network bridging potential and the use of complementary and alternative medicine in later life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 69-80.
    4. Letki, Natalia & Evans, Geoffrey, 2005. "Endogenizing Social Trust: Democratization in East-Central Europe," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 515-529, July.
    5. Rossen, Isabel & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Dunlop, Patrick D. & Lawrence, Carmen, 2019. "Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 23-27.
    6. Dahai Zhao & Hongyu Zhao & Paul D. Cleary, 2019. "International variations in trust in health care systems," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 130-139, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Szymon Florek & Magdalena Piegza & Paweł Dębski & Piotr Gorczyca & Robert Pudlo, 2022. "The Influence of Sociodemographic Factors on Symptoms of Anxiety, the Level of Aggression and Alcohol Consumption in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic among Polish Respondents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2014. "Trust, but verify? When trustworthiness is observable only through (costly) monitoring," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 20, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    3. Natalia Letki, 2008. "Does Diversity Erode Social Cohesion? Social Capital and Race in British Neighbourhoods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 99-126, March.
    4. Sabatini, Fabio, 2006. "The Empirics of Social Capital and Economic Development: A Critical Perspective," Knowledge, Technology, Human Capital Working Papers 12097, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    5. Ho Fai Chan & Martin Brumpton & Alison Macintyre & Jefferson Arapoc & David A Savage & Ahmed Skali & David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2020. "How confidence in health care systems affects mobility and compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Sprengholz, Philipp & Siegers, Regina & Goldhahn, Laura & Eitze, Sarah & Betsch, Cornelia, 2021. "Good night: Experimental evidence that nighttime curfews may fuel disease dynamics by increasing contact density," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    7. Callaghan, Timothy & Motta, Matthew & Sylvester, Steven & Lunz Trujillo, Kristin & Blackburn, Christine Crudo, 2019. "Parent psychology and the decision to delay childhood vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Lu Chen & Miaoting Cheng, 2022. "Exploring Chinese Elderly’s Trust in the Healthcare System: Empirical Evidence from a Population-Based Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Daphne Bussink-Voorend & Jeannine L. A. Hautvast & Lisa Vandeberg & Olga Visser & Marlies E. J. L. Hulscher, 2022. "A systematic literature review to clarify the concept of vaccine hesitancy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(12), pages 1634-1648, December.
    10. Marco Ferroni & Mercedes Mateo Díaz & J. Mark Payne, 2007. "Development under Conditions of Inequality and Distrust: An Exploration of the Role of Social Capital and Social Cohesion in Latin America," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 53818, Inter-American Development Bank.
    11. M. Brzeziński & B. Jancewicz & Natalia Letki, 2013. "GINI Country Report: Growing Inequalities and their Impacts in Poland," GINI Country Reports poland, AIAS, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies.
    12. Beata Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, 2019. "Does Participation in Social Networks Foster Trust and Respect for Other People—Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    13. Oliver Huxhold & Elena Hees & Noah J. Webster, 2020. "Towards bridging the grey digital divide: changes in internet access and its predictors from 2002 to 2014 in Germany," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 271-280, September.
    14. Francesco Sarracino & Małgorzata Mikucka, 2017. "Social Capital in Europe from 1990 to 2012: Trends and Convergence," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 407-432, March.
    15. Anna Zimdars & Gindo Tampubolon, 2012. "Ethnic Diversity and European's Generalised Trust: How Inclusive Immigration Policy Can Aid a Positive Association," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 17(3), pages 1-11, August.
    16. Natalia Letki & Mierina, I. (Inta), 2012. "GINI DP 45: The Power of Networks. Individual and Contextual Determinants of Mobilising Social Networks for Help," GINI Discussion Papers 45, AIAS, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies.
    17. Auste Valinciute & Mike S. Schäfer, 2020. "Lithuanians’ perceptions of vaccination and their sources of information: a literature review," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(6), pages 981-991, July.
    18. Woosang Hwang & Narges Hadi & Wencheng Zhang & Maria T. Brown & Merril Silverstein, 2024. "Does Intergenerational Solidarity with Adult Children Reduce Middle-Aged Parents’ Risk of Mortality in Later Life?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 19(5), pages 2539-2553, October.
    19. Kalischer Wellander, Benjamin & Sanandaji, Tino, 2018. "Tracing the Historic Roots of Generalized Trust," SSE Working Paper Series in Economic History 2018:1, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 10 May 2018.
    20. Christian Bjørnskov, 2010. "How does social trust lead to better governance? An attempt to separate electoral and bureaucratic mechanisms," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 323-346, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:22:p:14655-:d:966458. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.